"Were the ball to be "fixed" so that, say, 50 yards came off Mickelson et al's future drives, then nothing else need be done in the realm of equipment."
After a week of listening to depressingly out-of-touch tour players and manufacturer reps whine about the big, bad USGA stripping away the opportunity for the companies to innovate and therefore line player pockets to endorse the latest stuff, it was heart-warming to read the following two columns. While both are wondering why the grooves were selected for regulation, both make it clear that had areas of greater priority been selected the manufacturers probably could have carried on innovating with clubs. But instead, the desire to protect the ball led to the groove rule change that they hate.
Larry Bohannan writes in the Desert Sun:
Clearly someone has to have some control and exercise some limits on golf equipment. Otherwise we could be on the golf course with laser-guided shoulder-mounted rocket launchers that belch fire as they stick golf balls near pins 400 yards away. And manufacturers are hardly the best judge of what should be the limits of technology, since they are mostly interested in making an extra buck and helping the price of their stock. So the USGA probably is the best organization to help keep golf from total equipment chaos.
But more than a few critics are wondering why the USGA decided grooves should be where it draws the line in the sand rather than some other controversial advances of the last few decades.
John Huggan is more direct. Changing the ball would have allowed everything else to be left alone.
For this whole affair – all of it – has little or nothing to do with whether or not "square" grooves impart more spin on the ball from rough than do "V" grooves. That folks, is but a peripheral issue, one that, for 99.9999999 per cent of the golfing population, is all but irrelevant 99.9999999 per cent of the time.
Oh no, this is ultimately about the ball, the little white sphere Woods and his mates routinely launch unprecedented distances; the small, 1.68" diameter globe that has rendered so many of the planet's truly great course designs obsolete for championship play; the petite pellet that has caused club committees the world over to spend unnecessary millions in whatever currency you care to mention on "improving" and lengthening those same courses.
In other words, this whole grooves thing is but a smokescreen erected by the USGA and the R&A to disguise their collective incompetence and inactivity in dealing with a ball that goes way too far when struck by a leading professional. And that, of course, is what the world of golf should currently be talking about, not the tedious subject of grooves on the faces of clubs. Were the ball to be "fixed" so that, say, 50 yards came off Mickelson et al's future drives, then nothing else need be done in the realm of equipment. Nothing else would matter. Not even a little bit.
Sunday, February 7, 2010 at 08:58 PM
Reader Comments (24)
Richard F-absolutely.In a perfect world it wouldnt be needed to trick up a course like Merion to test the best and J B Holmes should be selling hamburgers.
btw I disagree with John Huggan on one point. Any change that forces more skills to be used has to be a good thing. If that weren't the case then why are some professionals using these wedges and in so doing risking loss of respect within their peer group?
Consider that some Tour players - under warm but wet conditions - can fly their teeshots from 300 to 320 yards without any roll (Woods, Mickelson, Watson, Holmes, D. Johnson are easy examples.) Another much larger group of players (Donald, Z. Johnson, Leonard, Furyk, Stricker) are in the 270 - 280 carry distance.
If the "rollback" rule limits carry yardage to - say - 280 yards - which was about what the "old balata types" used to produce for a Nicklaus or Weiskopf - that is roughly a 10% distance reduction. . . Presumably it would also result in 10% less for irons too. . .
So, a 460 yard par 4 . . . Mickelson and Donald are paired together on a warm day at a wet golf course. . . Phil flies it 310, 150 left, 9 iron to the green. . . Luke flies it 275, 175 left, 6 iron to the green. . . 10% rollback scenario . . . Phil flies it 275, 175 left, 6 iron to the green . . . Luke drives 245, 215 left, 3 iron hybrid to the green. . . Unless I am wrong - Luke Donald is hurt more by a rollback than the bombers?
"If I were commissioner this is what I would do. They have already done the grooves, now get rid of the big broom-handle putter. That's not a stroke. And reduce the size of the driver head from 460cc to 240cc. That gets that sweetspot smaller. if you mis-hit it, it's going to go 20-30 yards shorter rather than four. And reduce the distance the ball travels by 10 percent. Is there any chance of this happening? No. There's a 100 percent chance of it not happening," he added with a laugh.
Donald will fare quite well - just as he did last week - by being more accurate than the bombers. However, we can assist him and protect the game at the same time by making it harder to hit the ball straight as we roll back ball distance by about 10%. Therefore, I like Watson's suggestions but doubt that I'll be seeing them anytime soon. In the meantime, the game continues to change and not for the better.
I agree, Ky...keep things firm and fast. It will keep the Big Boys in the weeds if they can't hit it straight. It would also help to roll back the ball a bit and make the driver heads smaller as Watson suggested.
Oh, and I'm changing my handle to from "Ron in Montana" to "BigSky". I want a cool name like Ky Lafoon's Ghost, thusgone, and some of the others. So now I'm BigSky. BS for short. LOL!
I am a strong supporter of firm and fast and have demonstrated before - through statistics on Tour events in Texas - that firm and fast conditions are a real equalizer. But my point today was that the "carry distance players" would not be hurt as much by a 10% distance roll back as would shorter hitters under lush green conditions. . . Currently under my scenarios - there is a 3 club difference into the green between Phil and Luke (9 iron vs 6 iron) - but Luke can hit greens much more often from 175 yards than from 215 . . . Phil, on the other hand will not have the same degree of difficulty as Luke in going from 150 to 175.
My opinion...Find a ball that WORKED in the 80s/early 90s(I just started playing 3 years ago...so not too sure what it would be...Titleist Pro 90?) and have every manufacturer create their OWN version of that ball(specs stay the same, of course) and deliver them to the sponsored pros. The average fan would then be able to go purchase "the Tour Ball by Callaway" or continue with a game-improvement ball.
I have a hard time seeing how this would negatively sales for the manufacturers(to any large degree)...but I'm not in the business, and I play both Hogan Tour Deeps and Hogan Hawks, so what do I know...:)
Cheers all,
LK
Good comparison, I like it, but let me address ONE important thing. Who says a shorter hitter has a "right" to compete? Kinda like me saying that I want to run the 100 meter olympic finals, and being I am not as big and fast as the next guy, I want some sort of compensation.
Same goes for the long putter, IF you don't have the nerves for the short putter, go pump gas, NO ONE has a right to compete, you earn it.
Well said Ky.
...thinking back to this weekend - just how far was that 3w? that JB Holmes hit that stuck next to the pin late in the final round?
-LK